tv Public Affairs CSPAN February 14, 2013 10:00am-1:00pm EST
picked an arbitrator. the local people are both part of the boards in the general counsel. they represent the charging party. if the issue a complaint, they aren't the elections that are conducted carefully. if they do not arbitrate, they have a separate group of administrative law judges. they are independent. they decide the cases as the judge initially. host: charles craver of george washington university. think you for being on the "washington journal." the house is coming into session in just a minute. tomorrow, the senate will be in doing a test vote on chuck hagel's nomination for defense secretary. it is a culture wrote -- it is a cloture vote. of congressional hearings going on today. a couple of them are live on c-
span 3 or [inaudible]. if you go there you will be able to see all of the hearings. thank you for being with us on the "washington journal." the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 14, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable chris collins to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate.
the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. mullen, for five minutes. -- mr. mullin, for five minutes. mr. mullin: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mullin: i began running a business when i was only 20 years old. back then if you worked hard and followed the rules you had a pretty good shot of getting ahead. today, it seems the deck is increasingly stacked against those who pursue their own dreams, especially if you're a business owner. more and more businesses are faced with consistent uncertainty from washington's
not dealing with the regulations. it's a cloud of doubt that's been cast over the entire economy. for most business owners it's a daily struggle just to keep the doors open in large part because the government itself is a consistent obstacle. the national federation of independent businesses recently released figures from december indicating the mood of businesses is at a recession level. 70% of business owners that were surveyed identified the current environment as a bad time to expand and political uncertainty topped the list for the reasons not to attempt economic growth. lee, a resident of muskogee, oklahoma, and president of acme corporation, said a lot of small businesses had to go in debt to stay afloat. he said now they can't make the
money they need to to pay down debts due in large part the environment the government has created. i joined a small group of members in congress. i have faced unprecedented difficulties ensuring my business succeeded. i step on the floor of the united states house of representatives with a firsthand understanding how high the hurdles are for a business to succeed and just simply jump over. last month when president obama was sworn into his second term, i was reminded of something he said four years ago in his first inauguration. the president said, "the question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small but whether it works, whether it helps families finds a job at a decent wage, care they can afford or retirement that is dignified." what we have seen from this president is reckless spending and a heavy hand in regulation. at the time of the president's first inauguration, the
unemployment rate was 7.8%. at the time of his second inauguration, it was exactly the same and this month unemployment rose to 7.9%. while the rate of unemployment has been mostly stagnant, the national debt has not. in the past four years of failed obama policies, the nation has added $6 trillion of new debt onto the backs of citizens and businesses. today our national debt stands at $16.4 trillion, broken down by american citizens, that's $52,210 for every man, woman and child in this country. we must get back on the right track and bring optimism into business climate. first, we must peel back some of the regulations that bind the hands of our nation's job creators. second, congress must make the difficult decisions we were elected to make and restrain government spending. businesses cannot grow or expand in a climate of higher interest rates and higher taxes. third, we have to be about
creating a job-friendly environment. i came to congress as a businessman who simple low got fed up with the government hindering my ability to create jobs. my mission every day is to make it easier for businesses to start, to expand and to be successful. in businesses, we know first you must face the problem honestly and then come up with real solutions that actually solve the problem. the economic policies of government trying to spend its way to prosperity has failed. those of us in business know it's the private sector that creates real jobs, not the government. strong leadership and meaningful reforms are needed to move the looming cloud of doubt from our economy. adding more hurdles will not get this job done. it is time we as elected leaders lead. sometimes it's lonely but it's the right thing to do. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for
five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman who preceded me is new to the congress of the united states. i've been here for a little longer than that. some 32 years. this is the least confidence building congress, last congress and this congress in which i have ever served. it is taking us from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. it is creating cliffs where no cliffs ought to exist. and they undermine the confidence of business, america, americans and indeed the rest of the world that needs a stable and secure america to ensure that we keep the kind of stability that americans want here at home and around the world. now, we will be dealing with a bill today and tomorrow that could be considered in an hour. we are going to take two days to consider it.
and while we consider that, while we fiddle, while the sequester threatens to burn our economy, jobs and confidence and we do nothing and we have not done anything to avoid the sequester for the last seven weeks of this year and nothing in this congress. as a matter of fact, other than completing the work of making sure the folks who were damaged by sandy were assisted, which should have been done in the last congress, we've done nothing here of real substance in seven weeks, but we're about to confront the sequester. i want every american to know, i want every person who relice on the federal government, and that is mainly -- relies on the federal government, and that is mainly all of us, that if
democrats were in charge of this house, the sequester would not go into effect. why? because we would adopt an alternative policy that would cut spending so that we can move towards deficit and debt reduction, which we need to do as a country, and we would make a balanced proposal that the senate democrats will offer this day and that we wanted to offer and chris van hollen offered last night in the budget committee but was not made in order. in his state of the union speech, the president talked about the american people deserve a vote. he's right. the american people deserve to know how members are going to vote on issues of consequence to them, their families and their lives and their jobs and their country.
but we were denied a vote last week on this i shall knew which was a substitute for the sequester and we are again denied this week a substitute for the sequester. now, some of my republican friends try to say, oh, it's the president who wanted the sequester. that is dead flat wrong. rob neighbors did mention the sequester after the republicans passed the sequester in this house in july of 2011. they call it the cut, cap and balance legislation, and its fallback position was sequester. it was a policy that all i think but two republicans voted for when it passed this house. it was a policy that they
promoted and supported. it is a bad policy. it's an irrational policy. it is a policy that will have great adverse consequences. at a town meeting i said a sequester works like this -- if you have a food budget and a movie budget and somebody loses their job, the sequester says you cut food by 10% and movies by 10%. no rational american family would do that. they say this month we are not going to the movies or six months we are not going to the movies but we make sure we put food on our table. sequester says, no, we cut food by 10% and movies by 10%. sequester is an irrational response to our failure as a congress, correct, to get our
finances on a sustainable path. we need to do that, and democrats are suggesting a balanced way to do it. and by the way, every bipartisan commission that has dealt with this issue has recommended a balanced process to get from where we are to where we need to be. i would hope that we would spend next week -- we're going to go on break next week as if we've done our job. we haven't. we ought to be spending time today, tomorrow, next week and the week thereafter in avoiding the irrationality of the sequester process, but i have a list of republicans here, all of whom sebring it on. the sequester's ok. well, if we do the sequester we're going to find out it's not ok. so, mr. speaker, i urge the majority leader, i urge the
speaker to bring forth substantive legislation that is balanced which will avoid the sequester taking place. it's bad for our people, bad for our country and bad policy and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. speaker. dr. julian davidson passed away on january 31, 2013. i have known julian davidson and his wife dorothy for only a few years but i know enough about julian davidson, what he did and how he lived to know he was an american patriot who will be sorely missed by his family, the tennessee valley, america and me. julian davidson was born in the small town of oakmen in walker county, alabama, on september 2, 1927. he was a proud son of oakman
and walker county. however, his destiny lay elsewhere. at the age of 17, julian davidson hitchhiked to montgomery, alabama, and without permission and despite being underaged, enlisted in the navy during world war ii. he served with distunks on gun ships, loading heavy ammunition into gun turrets. julian davidson's naval service gave him an enduring respect and admiration for america's war fighters who serve in harm's way. after the navy, julian davidson attended classes during the day and worked at a pool hall at night to obtain and electrical engineering degree from auburn university. after graduation, julian davidson joined the tennessee valley authority where he rose to senior design engineer. in 1961, julian davidson began work for the united states ballistic missile defense system organization as an aerospace research engineer, thus beginning his life's passion in missile defense that
spanned half a century. julian davidson once briefed secretary of defense robert mcin a mayor for our possible anti-satellite role. army leadership didn't believe he would do it so they sent in julian davidson, then a junior member of the briefing team to make the presentation. julian related, and i quote, for some reason he was very interested and asked how long it would take and how much it would cost. i answered 15 months and $15 million. he didn't flinch. he said do it. we went through about six decision milestones in that 15-minute briefing. . in time he he became the trector of the advanced lipids agency and one of the youngest people to receive the rank of senior federal service. he in 1981 he was married in fairfax, virginia.
julian loved and admired dorothy for intelligence and spark. julian davidson used to say that dorothy, quote, is the glue that holds everything together. he wrote in a speech, quote, i'd reich to thank my wife, dorothy, who in addition to running her company takes care of family matters allowing me to do things that interest me the most, missile development and testing. julian davidson was quick witted when he added, quote, i want you to know the rumor is not true that dorothy does all the maintenance jobs around the home because i refuse to. i would be happy to do these tasks except she will not allow me to borrow her tools. in the 1990's, julian and dorothy davidson settled in huntsville, alabama. a community he loved very much. julian started davidson technologies in 1996 with just two employees. julian davidson emerged as a leading figure in the tennessee valley and believed if everyone worked for the betterment of the community, regardless of personal gain, everyone
benefited. julian sought to leave our community and country better than he found it and he did that. julian davidson is a former chairman of the air force studies board of the national research council, member of the defense sciences board, and vice chairman of the technology assessment committee of the united states -- united space command, for national research council. julian davidson twice received the army exceptional civilian service award. he has received the air force meritorious civilian service award, the nba pioneer award -- m.b.a. pioneer award, he's a member of the employee hall of fame, united technology hall of fame, and was with auburn alumni engineering council. his impact on america is enormous. he is known by many as the father of missile defense in america. julian davidson is survived by his wife, dorothy, his four children, his two grandchildren,
and three great grandchildren. america and the davidson family have lost a great man and true patriot and we are all better for having known dr. julian davidson. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, president obama's state of the union speech was memorable and important for a number of reasons. i'm pleased the president talked about gun violence, climate change, voting rights, and of course jobs and the economy. i'm especially pleased for the first time in more than a decade the state of the union had a real focus on poverty and the need to help those who economically are the most vulnerable in our nation.
poverty is the root cause of many our nation's problems. those in poverty face challenges that middle and higher income families simply do not have to face. and to be frank, there are too many voices in the united states congress that are silent on this issue. so i commend the president for talking about poverty, which we must confront and address if we are truly to fulfill our mandate to form a more perfect union. one of the most devastating effects of poverty is hunger. and we cannot end hunger now if we are not talking about it. this is a big problem. this is a costly problem. and this is a problem that is not going away unless we act. mr. speaker, over 50 million people are hungry in america. more than 50 million people who struggle to put food on their tables. many of these are hardworking people whose jobs just do not pay enough to feed their families. many are jobless. and many are homeless. we need to use every opportunity we have to talk about it and to
shine a light on the plight of the hungry. to take hunger out of the shadows and rededicate ourselves to the need to end hunger now. as i said last week, just because over 50 million people in this country struggle to put food on their tables doesn't mean we don't have starvation in america. thankfully we have developed a safety net that helps protect the vast majority of the hungry. snap or what -- food stamps, is one of the most important parts of that safety net. there are a myriad of different initiatives being used to combat hunger in america. there are public, private, and nonprofit initiatives that are all very successful in their own ways. the problem is that these efforts from federal to state to local governments from nonprofits like churches and food banks to for-profit businesses are often working indpenaltyly of each other. they are -- independently of each other. they are not always connected. mr. speaker, we need to work smarter and more efficiently if we are going to end hunger now.
we need to bring everyone together and connect the dots. we need a plan. that's why i have called for a white house conference on food and nutrition. over the years there have been citywide, countywide, and statewide hunger summits. food banks, hospitals, colleges, and universities have all held these events, but there has not been one nationwide hunger summit convened by the white house since president nixon hosted such a summit in 1969, over 44 years ago. we need this conference today more than ever because hunger's getting worse in america not better. our deficit and our debt are forcing us to do more with less and that means we need to be more efficient and streamline with our resources. our federal agencies should be talking to each other and addressing hunger in a more comprehensive and holistic way. why shouldn't the departments of labor, health and human services, housing and urban development, and yes, the department of defense, sit down and talk about the impact of hunger and nutrition have on their efforts and how best they could address this problem?
as these agencies coordinate, we'll need to involve anti-hunger safety net nonprofits like our food banks, religious institution, schools and hospitals. we need to bring in the business community, including the food and beverage industry, financial institution, and manufacturers. we need to bring our doctors and nurses teachers and pastors, our business leaders and politicians, and, yes, the hungry together in one room to develop one plan to end hunger now. and then we need to agree to implement and execute the plan. mr. speaker, hunger is a political condition. we have the means and knowledge to end hunger now. we just don't have the political will. and while hunger is a political condition, it should not be a partisan issue. a white house conference on food and nutrition is the forum we need to galvanize political will to finally end hunger in america. ending hunger takes bold leadership. it takes presidential leadership because the president is the only one who can call everyone
together, who can get everyone in the same room and on the same page in order to come up with one meaningful and achievable plan. we need the president to rise to the occasion and to say that we are going to end hunger now. mr. speaker, i call on the white house to host a conference on food and nutrition. i call on the white house to commit to ending hunger in america just as they are working to reduce obesity and improve nutrition. i call on the white house to end hunger now and i ask my colleagues, republicans and democrats, to join in all efforts to end hunger now. mr. speaker, ending hunger now is more than a nice phrase, it is something we must do. it is our moral obligation. it is what a great country like america should do. end hunger now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker.
part of the err of unreality -- air of unreality in washington is the myth of our inability to contend with budget reductions and the threat of sequestration in stabilizing america's finances. no doubt the draconian hand of across-the-board cuts in every program from food safety to border control to air traffic control would be foolish and destructive. let me be clear, the major problem in all of this is here in congress. and our political structure. which creates self-i flicted crises, sequestration, and the postal deficit are just two examples. we know what to do, but you would never know it because we spend most of our efforts around here describing and decrying the problems rather than doing something about it. let me repeat, the amount of butt reduction is something that can in fact be managed if only he we change how america does
business. -- only we change how america does business. nowhere has the cries been more anguished than sequestration on the department of defense, ironically from many of the same people who insisted on the sequestration gimmick in the first place. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he
details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our contending with the former soviet union where deterrence was the order of the day and we were relying on massive assured mutual destruction of that huge country with overwhelming force. now not even the most delusional think we need a fraction of that firepower for today's threats like north korea. and it certainly wouldn't work against nuclear weapon falling in the arms of some radical extremist that by the way is most likely to happen with pakistan's proven nuclear capability than iran's that is still being developed. and the cost of this
overwhelming force, including its three delivery system, ought to give people pause. consider the 14 ohio class submarines, each with 24 icbm's and each missile armed with five warheads. each three times the explosive power of the bombs dropped on japan. we have 118 b-5 's and strategic bombers, and all the land-based missiles where people are in the silos ready to launch in a moment's notice. it is by any stretch of the imagination extravagance that borders on lunacy. the $18 -- $80 billion the white house was forced to promise for the upgrades on the nuclear weapons complex and at least $100 billion to replace strategic delivery systems that were extracted in return for votes to pass the start treaty
are obvious places to begin retrenchment. there are tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to be saved over the next 10 years by refocusing our defense posture for the threats of today and the likely ones of tomorrow. let's start cutting this massive cold war deterrence based on the threat of nuclear weapons we have never been able to use, don't want to use, shouldn't use, and can't afford. i invite my colleagues, especially those on the other side of the aisle, to join us in getting real and getting specific. there is a clear path forward that should command the support of republicans and democrats alike to achieve fiscal stability. let's rein in outrageous crop insurance abuses. don't fight health care reform. accelerate it. the work we are doing in oregon if applied nationally could save uple to $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. pay for the privilege of taking
america's mineral wealth by reforming the mining act of 1872 and slash the fossilized nuclear weapons program. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard, for five minutes. without objection. ms. roybal-allard: mr. speaker, last week i introduced h.r. 498 to re-authorize the sober truth of preventive underage drinking act, better known as the stop act. the original stop act passed with bipartisan support in 2006. it was based on the recommendations of the 2003 institute of medicine report which outlined the extent of the underaged drinking problem in the united states. at that time, 20% of 8th graders, 42% of 10th graders,
and 58% of 12th graders reported being drunk in their lifetime. designed to address this public health crises, the stop act established an interagency committee to coordinate federal efforts to reduce and ultimately prevent underaged drinking. the law financed public health research on underaged drinking and authorized a national media campaign to educate parents about the dangers of consuming whol before the age of 21. . the stop act provided grants. as a result of this comprehensive approach, we have seen positive results in both national statistics and in communities across america. according to the 2012 monitoring the future survey,
the lifetime use of alcohol by eighth, 10th and 12th graders is at the lowest level in years. unfortunately, there is more that needs to be done. despite the progress we have made, alcohol continues to be the million one drug of choice among youth, and the consequences are devastating. in addition to costing society over $62 billion a year, underage drinking by youth 15 to 20 years of age is a major cause of homicide, suicide and motor vehicle accidents, and it results in the death of approximately 5,000 youth every year. adding to this tragedy is the fact that all of these consequences are preventable. this makes re-authorization of the stop act even more
necessary. h.r. 498 continues the successful programs of the original stop act and adds a grant program to train peed at rick health care pro-- pediatric health care providers on the best practices for screening and treating substance abuse among youth. mr. speaker, the re-authorization of the stop act is an important bipartisan effort to help prevent the needless suffering and costs associated with underage drinking. i urge my colleagues to join me and my original co-sponsors, congressman frank wolf and congresswoman rosa delauro, by co-sponsoring the stop re-authorization bill, h.r. 498, so we can continue to move forward in our efforts to address this public health crises affecting our children. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer, for five minutes. without objection. mr. kilmer: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today with sincere appreciation for the opportunity i have to represent my region in our nation's capital. throughout the past year, whether it be in grays harbor or port angeles, tacoma, what i heard from folks around my region is they want solutions to our problems. people want to get back to work. they want to start new businesses. they want to explore new frontiers of science and technology. they want to help build our nation's bridges and roads. they want to refurbish our schools and our buildings. i'm passionate about these issues and i'm committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find new ways to move this economy forward. over the past six weeks, i've had the opportunity to meet
with constituents to talk about their top concerns, and whether it's back in washington state or visits with folks who've traveled 3,000 miles to our nation's capital, the number one thing i hear about is the reckless and devastating impact that impending across-the-board cuts would have on our families and on our communities. i've heard from educators and administrators that they face dramatic cuts that would lead to ballooning class sizes and significant cuts to financial aid. i've heard from parents who are afraid for their kids who have autism, fearful that their kids won't be able to get the services that they rely on. i've heard from tribal leaders who say that these cuts will scale back community policing on our reservations and jeopardize patient's access to the indian health service. and someone who spent the last decade working in economic development, i've heard from small business owners who say
that all of this uncertainty is making them hesitant to hire new workers and expand their production lines. virtually every meeting that i have had has detailed how these reckless and wrong headed across-the-board cuts would be. yesterday testifying before the house armed services committee, deputy secretary of defense, ashton carter, pointed out these cuts aren't happening because we thought about them strategically. they're not happening because we've identified wasteful spending. they're not happening because we discovered some new technology that makes it cheaper to keep our nation safe. they're only happening because they are, as he put it, the collateral damage of political gridlock. we've already seen the effects of these looming cuts in washington state. the puget sound naval ship yard, the largest employer in my district, had to postpone its career fair because of all of this budget uncertainty.
this is a no-brainer. we have the work and we have the workers, but they can't hire because congress hasn't done its job. puget sound naval ship yard needs to be able to actively recruit and hire workers. our local economy needs it, and our national security depends on it. and yet here we are. later today we'll be focusing on legislation that doesn't solve this problem, isn't going to pass the senate and isn't going to become law. and after we finish legislative tomorrow, we're all being sent home for a week. this leaves us with just four legislative days for us to act before these across-the-board cuts go into effect. we were elected to this body to help people. stopping these damaging nonstrategic across-the-board cuts to avoid undermining our economy should be our top priority. we should be working day and night until we have a solution. by doing nothing we risk
putting our fragile economy back into a recession. by doing nothing, we refuse the commitments we've made. we're cutting education, kicking kids off head start, hurting small businesses and gutting research and innovation , the foundations of our long-term economic growth. by doing nothing we hurt the men and women who spend their days protecting our nation and providing essential services to the american people. and by doing nothing, congress is sending the wrong message to the american people. mr. speaker, we need to get america back to work and, mr. speaker, we need to get congress working again too. doing nothing is not an option. let's put an end to these gimmicks and let's stop kicking the can down the road. let's stop these series of self-imposed crises that hurts
the private sector. let's work together to reach a balanced compromise, to replace the across-the-board cuts to a smart balanced approach in addressing our fiscal challenges and getting our economy growing again. let's maintain our commitment to our nation's most vulnerable and preserve retirement security for our seniors, and let's get america back to work. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas for five minutes. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. this month the supreme court will hear arguments in shelby vs. holder, a case that challenges the constitutionality of section 5 of the voting rights act. it is imperative that the voting rights act be upheld in its entirety. for without it, a fundamental
piece of our democracy will be out of touch for millions in this country. mr. speaker, i stand here after two decades and i'm supposed to be standing here representing a district that's been altered twice. but, mr. speaker, i stand here representing a district that has been altered three times at many times in this last two decades. and we saw in the recent election that discrimination on the basis of race is a persistent reality throughout many localities and states protected by section 5 of the voting rights act. without these protections, voters are at risk of losing their fundamental right to vote and to have that vote counted. the voting rights act provides a remedy to protect voters even by addressing actual instances
of discrimination or by preventing discrimination from happening in the first place. section 5 provides localities the opportunity to prove that they are fully committed to ensuring everyone has a right to vote and sets out clear criteria for doing so. in this way, section 5 of the voting rights act encourages localities to establish fair voting practices but demands real proof of the progress. i cannot tell you how many cases that come to the attention of the justice department almost on a monthly basis of discrimination in this area. the constitution is clear that the congress has the authority to protect voters. that is why congress spent so much time in 2006 reviewing all of the data and hearing from all sides.
the 2006 re-authorization was recognition that discrimination still exists but that congress has a responsibility to ensure that every voter must continue to exercise the right. if every state would prove to the voters that they are willing not to discriminate, there would not be the need, but that has not happened. even states not covered have had difficulty of allowing minorities to express themselves. now, i have been a victim of discrimination through redistricting and cracking and packing and every other technique that can happen in redistricting. mr. speaker, until we in this country can guarantee that voters will be handled fairly, there's no way that we should be talking about doing away
with section 5 of the voting rights act. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas, mr. hults camp -- mr. huelskamp, for five minutes. mr. huelskamp: kansas state university has faithfully served the people of kansas and this great nation for 150 years . k-state was one of the first schools to provide a degree in home economics. it has helped feed a hungry world through innovative research. and kansas state university is preparing for the next generation of animal research with the construction of the national bio and agri defense
research laboratory. let me extend my heart felt congratulations to kansas state as we look forward to success in the next 150 years and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i have always had such great respect for this distinguished body. the holder and interpreter of democracy.
the institution that proudly protects the constitution that was written by those who saw in this land this bright and shining sun, from sea to shining sea, enormous opportunity for freedom. so many people came to this nation and they came in many different ways. we don't carry the way we came into the future as much as the fact that we are grateful of the opportunity that this nation has given us. the nation has been able to turn the tide on embracing democracy in its fullest because of the constitution and the laws because we adhere to the three branches of government. so although my ancestors came to this nation in bondage and lasted for hundreds of years, slavery that has its remnants
continuously as we move throughout society. there are now laws that can ensure no matter how you came to this country, no matter what language you spoke, you are in fact deserving of the protection of the constitution. . out of that protection came the 14th and 15th amendments. those amendments provided that no state shall make or enforce any law which will abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the united states nor shall any state deprive the person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. and not deny any person in the jurisdiction equal protection. and the 15th amendment provides the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state on account of its race, color, or previous servitude. finally, each amendment allows this congress to enforce laws, and that was the basis upon the authority of the president that
came from texas, president lyndon baines johnson, who joined the young, brilliant man who ultimately sacrificed his life, dr. martin luther king, to engage in debates and discussion that resulted in the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act. and here we are today with the opportunity for people from all walks of life and all communities to be able to show and to have as of september 28, 2011, the upholding of the preclearance provision, a very special provision of the voting rights act, by a district court, federal court, in the district of columbia. shelby vs. the united states now is before the supreme court. in my argument, mr. speaker, this is no time to eliminate preclearance. i'm reminded of a letter i wrote to the u.s. attorney's office,
attorney general eric holder, to just in my city alone, the city of houston, to report 15 voter abuse cases. without the preclearance where would we be? or the proposal to eliminate the independent school district board of trustees, over a school district that has worked hard to survive, will be subjected to the preclearance to determine whether not only the students will be denied their right to learn in a school district they love and is fighting for their education, but that elected persons will be denied the right to serve and others denied the right to vote for them. the voting rights act protects all voters. it gives them all the right to vote, one vote one person. shelby county has raised the issue they should not be subjected to preclearance. they are beyond that. the district court, federal court decided in washington, d.c., that they were wrong. that preclearance is constitutional. and we know that well because about -- because when we had the
privilege of re-authorizing section 5 in 2006, building on the leadership of my predecessor, the honorable barbara jordan, who came to the united states congress, only because along with andrew young, the first who came out of the deep south since reconstruction, only because america had seen fit to pass the voting rights act of 1965 because i can assure you with personal stories from barbara jordan told to us in her lifetime that she ran and ran and ran and could not be elected in houston, texas. the barbara jordan that was admired by many could not be elected until after the passage of the voting rights act because there were abuses and prohibitions and intimidation on african-americans being able to vote. so today i believe it is extremely important that as the supreme court takes this case up on february 27 that we stand in
the midst of the 15,000 sheets of documentation when i had the privilege of joining with my judiciary committee colleagues to re-authorize the voting rights act and specifically section 5 and writing amendments to ensure its sanctity and security for a period of years, that we -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: we did it with authority, mr. speaker. and i am asking that america stand against the elimination of the voting rights act. join us on february 27. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. garcia, for five minutes. without objection. mr. garcia: mr. speaker, this afternoon a a group of 20 freshmen members of congress
will gather to announce that we are putting aside our partisan differences to do the right thing for the american people. for democrats, this means that 10 of us are willing to compromise on spending as long as we keep our promise to seniors that they can retire with dignity and to have access to affordable quality health care. my republican colleagues have said that they are willing to compromise on revenues as long as democrats meet them halfway. like most americans, to those of us who are new in washington, compromise isn't a dirty word. it's what regular people, ordinary people do in their daily lives. the american people get it. if you have a problem that arises in your office, you and your co-workers may disagree on how to address it, but your
company does not go or wait until it gets to the last minute to solve it. you simply meet with your colleagues, put differences aside, and find solutions. not everyone will get what they want, but we move forward. and this is precisely what the american people have sent us to washington to do. they have sent us here to solve problems on their behalf and not argue all the time. mr. speaker, the challenges before us are serious and they deserve serious proposals. while our economy is growing, we still have many families that are looking for work or waiting for our economy to grow quicker. many parents are working two and three jobs and yet cannot find a way to save money for retirement or send their kids to school.
i see this all the time in my community. in places like kendell, westchester, the status quo is unacceptable to me. this status quo is unacceptable to me just as i know it is unacceptable to my republican colleagues. yet it seems that when we gather in this chamber rather than finding commonsense solution to our problems, we engage in ideological debates that are designed for political posturing that lead us nowhere. at a minimum, if we can't agree on every issue, we should be working hard to solve problems. the american people may not know this, but the fact is that of the 31 days that we met here last month, members of congress only gathered six times. and in those six days the only bill of any real significance
was the hurricane sandy relief, a bill that should have been approved last year. maybe this is the way washington works, but in the rest of america, you show up to your job 20% of the time, that's about one day a week, and you probably won't have a job for too long. and yet some of my colleagues find this acceptable. well, i don't know but the american people won't find this acceptable. so i respectfully invite each of my colleagues, republicans and democrats alike, and even those of you who have been in washington for a while, to join us for this moment of bipartisanship. and work together on behalf of our fellow citizens. let's remember it is a privilege to serve the american people. it's time to get to work. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, for five minutes. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, thank you. as oral arguments are being prepared for the february 27 u.s. supreme court hearing in the shelby county vs. holder, which challenges the constitutionality of the -- section 5 of the voting rights act, i stand here today in strong support of upholding section 5 as evidence of its current critical necessity. in my home state of texas, the need for section 5 of the voting rights act is playing out in a very dramatic fashion. i am he' a plaintiff in an ongoing litigation involving the 2011 texas redistricting case.
i can personally attest and flatly state out that overt and deliberate racial discrimination is still used by leaders in texas today. i wish that statement was untrue and out of date. it will be wonderful to say that we have progressed past the need for protection under section 5 of the voting rights act. sadly, this is not the case. section 5 protects minorities from racial discriminatory voter i.d. laws, voter suppression tactics, and discriminatory redistricting plans. these protections are needed now as much as ever. in 2011, just two years ago, a map was drawn by the texas legislature that didn't merely affect the politics of our state , overt racially discriminatory tactics were used to isolate and suppress hundreds of thousands of minorities for the purpose of political gain by current
partisan leaders of my state. latino and african-american citizens in the state of texas suffered the most aggressive and deliberate discriminatory blows to our constitutional rights to fairly participate in election. sold and heartless tactics were used that should be simply relics of the past. relics like packing millions of minority voters together into as few districts as possible to dilute the impact of their vote by cracking the remaining voters to ensure that their vote has no impact at all. minorities were packed precinct by precinct and block by block in order to contain the impact of their growing population. yet here we are today fighting to uphold section 5. the right to vote and the right for one's voice to be heard through elected representation is a legally enacted and constitutional right that many
have bled and died for. yet we are still fighting for this very right. some say it's time to move on, but my dear friends, we must never move on while these rights are not just at risk but under attack. and when i detailed the discrimination contained within the redistricting process, no one should think i'm acting merely as a partisan democrat. the three-judge panel in federal court that heard the evidence questioned the witnesses and delivered the opinion of the texas redistricting case consist -- consisted of two judges appointed by republican president and one by a democratic president. their finding of intentional discrimination was unanimous. they could not have made their views any clearer stating, quote, the parties have provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space or need to address here. this was not a case heard 30 years ago or even 10 or five
years ago. the decision was released just last august, six months ago, barely six months ago. lastly, those who tell you that there is no he recourse for states that no longer discriminate are at best dangerously mistaken. the voting rights act contains provisions for states who have over the years exhibited that they are no longer in need of preclearance. states can submit evidence to the department of justice or the d.c. district court that they are no longer using racially discriminatory redistricting tactics and apply for a way out of section 5. as a matter of fact, since 2009, more states than ever in the history of the voting rights act have been denied the right out. -- have been granted the right out. so why are we challenging the constitutionality of a law that is protecting its citizens from racial discrimination when there is in fact recourse? i will tell you the sad truth is because, unfortunately in states like texas, where the minority population is growing, very
rapidly, and their voting strength is increasing, rather than work to earn the vote of minority citizens, state leaders would rather suppress voters through racially discriminatory tactics. my friends, our country is better than this. we are better than this. that's why we are here today in support of upholding section 5 of the voting rights act. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. mr. duncan: i request permission to address the house, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, one thing that president obama mentioned in his state of the union speech the other night, which i hope he follows up on, is his effort to stop the cost of college tuition fees from going up at such a rapid rate.
i spoke to a class at the university of tennessee last week and whenever i do, and i have done that many times, whenever i speak to classes it shocks the students when i tell them that in my first year at the university of tennessee it cost us -- it cost $90 per quarter in our tuition. in other words, i went to school for $270. . it went up to $135 a quarter my senior year. so it went $405. but this was shortly after the federal student loan program had come in. until that program came in, college tuition and fees went up at just the rate of inflation. it went up very slowly. in fact, sometimes less than inflation. but now and every since that program came in, tuition and fees went up three, four, five times the rate of inflation.
so today sometimes it costs 300%, 400% higher more than if we let it alone. when i went to the university of tennessee, i -- my senior year in high school i made $1.10 an hour. i got a big raise at the freshman at the university. i became a salesman at sears and i made $1.25 an hour. almost everybody who needed to could work part time and pay all of their expenses and fees in college. nobody had to borrow money to go to colleges or universities. nobody got out of school with a debt. then the federal government decided to help. and since then now what it has resulted in is everybody, almost everybody has to borrow money to pay their tuition and fees and almost everybody gets out of school with some kind of
huge debt. we've seen the same thing happen in medical care. the federal government decided to help out. before the federal government got involved in medical care, medical care was cheap and affordable by almost everybody. doctors even made house calls. we took what was a very minor problem for a very few people and now we turned it into a massive major problem for everyone, and that seems to be the history of the federal government. i just came from a hearing in the oversight and government reform committee, and i will return to that shortly. but in the g.a.o. report on the new york medicaid program, which is the largest in the country, it tells -- it gives one instance -- or tells about a daily payment method results in $5,000 each -- daily rate for institutional residents in the state of new york. $5,000 daily payments.
the new york program is paying over twice as much as the average around the country, and we sometimes hear that medicare and medicaid can't be cut and we certainly don't want to hurt any lower income people, but there are some people and companies getting ridiculously fabulously wealthy off of medicare and medicaid and almost every government program ends up being some sort of sweetheart insider-type deal, giving contracts to companies who hire -- companies which hire former federal employees and it's just scannedless what is going on in this country and it really hurting this nation badly and hurting the middle income people that the president -- scandalous what is going on in this country and it is really hurting this nation badly and hurting the middle income people. i thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time.
though, comments from this morning's "washington journal" from representative dave schweikert of arizona. host: and now joining us on the "washington journal" is david schweikert, member of the small business committee up in the house. representative, don't know if you heard the first part of our conversation this morning, but we were discussing the president's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour. what do you think about that? guest: my wife and i have a game called think like an economist. if the president really, really is concerned about urban unemployment of youth, particularly minority youth, which is just astronomical numbers, you would have thought the proposal would have been for this population, for these
urban areas, i am going to do a training wage. i am going to do those things necessary to expand employment. because we know in the economic models, you know, think like an economist, raising the minimum wage almost 20% is going to raise their unemployment. look, it's great pandering to the political base, but it's really bad economics. host: why are you on the small business committee? guest: i am on the sbist and science and technology. and to the chairman of small business who has been kind enough to give me the chairmanship of the oversight subcommittee, so i'm hoping i can actually -- host: you come from a small business background? guest: oh, yeah. it's sort of investment businesses, real estate businesses. i was on financial services before. i'm one of those four members who was -- shall we say, we moved from the committees back in december. so you make the best of it, and one of the great things is i represent sort of the
scottsdale, phoenix area, and we are sort of entrepreneurs heaven. we have lots and lots of small sburel businesses so in many -- entrepreneurial businesses so in many ways it fits well. host: what about the removal from the republican leadership? guest: in one way, it's not necessarily i would have loved to have gotten there, but i think it forced a family discussion of how do you deal with those who are very economically conservative and just conservative and get us from the right to the left of our conference and get us to work and talk to each other? and in many ways it took sort of that upheaval of handful of the conservatives feel like they were being isolated and cut out of the process. that upheaval to force the conversation. host: something that you've talked about in recent days is the republican brand and the lead editorial this morning in "usa today," "divided g.o.p.'s
rebranding remains a work in progress." it says that a better road map for rebranding, the g.o.p., has come from a consummate insider. guest: i think that's actually substantially fair. look, we really are the party of economic growth. and i do these budget town halls all over arizona, and i've done about 100 of them. when you start to look at the mms, you can't tax enough, you can't cut enough to get us back to some level of fiscal sanity. it has to be done through economic growth. so, you know, there is one nugget of optimism that i got from the president's state of the union last night -- two nights ago and that is willing to do tax reform. i know david camp, who is chairman of ways and means, has
been just combineding it out trying to go to a much broader, flatter, fairer tax system. but we know that type of tax system will maximize economic growth. and as a republican, we can start to say, look, we're going to have to deal with the fiscal insanity that's happening. but we're going to partially get there by growing this economy. host: one nugget of hope is all you heard in the president's state of the union speech? guest: i was actually very saddened -- look, it's a beautiful speech. he's a great speaker. he knows how to smile and nod at the right moments, but if you ever read the speech and then the notes off to the side you start to realize the absurdity of many of the president's own comments of nothing in my proposals are going to raise taxes. oh, by the way, there's 59 new programs. you know, it's what point --
and i don't care if you're on the right or left, the american people are tired -- it's going to be a little harsh -- being played. at what point do you start to hold, particularly the leader of the free world, and say, ok, this is your fifth state of the union speech. on the previous four you gave us these platitudes and the proposals never showed up in the budget. they never showed up in paper. are you selling us ideas, are you actually delivering policies on paper? host: two more questions before we go to calls. and these are both from the front page of your hometown newspaper, "the arizona republic," "senate tackling migrant reform." immigration reform hearings are being held in the house and senate. looking at the immigration reform. being from arizona, what are your thoughts? guest: oh, it's a huge deal for being a border state, and we see it from several different
levels, both border crossing, being a state that has often had a very vibrant housing market and that housing market is coming up and that often becomes an attraction for illegal labor or undocumented labor. but for a lot of us also, the real debate is, what's the future look like? you know, what will the future of the immigration system be? will it be like canada and australia and great britain where it's essentially a point base system where we have a shortage of electrical engineers, electrical engineers move up in priority? and this sort of makes a loopback to that discussion of, do you design an immigration policy that maximizes economic growth for the nation? do you continue to focus on a chain, a relationship of family migration system which may actually be family friendly but
ultimately if you believe you have a moral obligation as political leadership of stabilizing the country, growing jobs and making sure you have the economic growth to cover medicare and medicaid and social security, i hate to say, the point system, you know, bringing in talent around the world may be the best economically but it's also going to create a real clash of political ideologies. host: big story, front page, "arizona republic," "u.s. airways-american deal will be announced today." guest: in my previous district before redistricting, i had the headquarters. we've been looking very carefully at what does it do to our employment base? we may lose some of the white-collar executives moving to texas depending on -- host: will headquarters stay in arizona? guest: i don't know all the details jeff. we've been given a tale we may lose a number of those
executives, but the reality of it is the vast majority of the employment for u.s. air, formerly america west, now this new combined company, it's airport base, it's reservation base, it's maintenance base. so the senior executives, we might lose some of them. as long as the majority stay in phoenix, because that phoenix airport is a wonderful hub for u.s. air. host: so representative schweikert, you don't know but you're thinking the headquarters may move to dallas, this airline? guest: i only know what i picked up in some of "the wall street journal" and some of the other comments and so far not all the details are out. my concern is i want the phoenix airport to stay a major hub because that becomes an economic engine for our community. so that's what we focus on. host: david schweikert is our guest, currently in his second term representing the sixth district of arizona. scottsdale, little bit of
phoenix that area? guest: some. it's a wonderful district. it's absolutely beautiful. and as my wife just texted me, it's going to be 75 on saturday. host: well, the first call for you comes from chicago, illinois, derrick is a democrat, hi, derrick. caller: hi. how are you? guest: how are you there, derrick? caller: i voted for republicans in local contests sometimes so it's about the idea. but the republican party as of late seems to always be against the popular or the majority of the people of america. whenever it comes down to doing something that's going to directly affect the people, such as the minimum wage increase, they always say it's going to cause unemployment to lies and somehow hurt small
businesses. you hardly ever hear them go against something to help businesses. guest: derrick, let me ask you a question. do you live in the chicago area? caller: uh-huh. guest: how is unemployment for youth minorities right now in your community? caller: it's high. guest: but illinois has -- but what's the minimum wage for illinois right now? caller: i think it's like $7.15 or something like that. guest: i thought illinois had a higher minimum wage than that. i thought they had a state one. the point is you can do what is good political rhetoric that sounds warm and fuzzy, or you can do what's honest and actually takes care of people. and that's actually one of my great frustrations here in washington, d.c. i see sometimes the speeches are so much more about political power than actually doing what helps folks.
instead of just throwing out saying let's go to $9 on the mainly, shouldn't the discussion be, we have a devastating level of youth minority unemployment in cities like yours, let's focus on that. what would grow that employment because we love and care for people? and instead, we do what's good political meat but not honest politics and honest economics. host: current federal minimum wage is $7.25. the rate in illinois, according to "politico" is $8.25. the president has proposed to raise it to $9 an hour. michigan, please go ahead with your question for representative schweikert. caller: representative schweikert, the minimum wage is used as the political football continuously. what i think would be a good thing for the country is if we set the minimum wage on all of the jobs in the country and set
it as a national need and a global competitive need instead of letting the minimum wage be brought up every so often as a political football. they need to set the minimum wage on all the jobs and then they can eliminate a lot of the union hassles and everything and we can be a lot more locally competitive. what do you think about that? guest: you're absolutely correct, it's used as a political football. it's dangle that object out there. it gets used am. some wonderful movement on your political base. if you and pri going to think like an economist, you would actually use -- you'd actually not even have a minimum wage. you would have actually -- you would allow the market to generate those wages. and my great concern is, if you're going to move to the minimum wage, are you going to have a training wage? are you going to have a wage for those folks that are 16, 17, 18 years old?
>> rosa parks. this will be the first statute of an african-american woman to be placed here in the capitol. i can't think of a more fitting honor for a great american hero who still inspires us all. on tuesday, the president laid out his agenda, and it's one i largely disagreed with. notably, i think it lacked any new ideas to give hope to the millions of americans still asking the question, where are the jobs? i it was largely more of the same. more tax hikes, more stimulus spending. and the president likes to attack congress, but if he's serious about enacting his agenda, i think it must start with part of this congress, his party controls the united states senate. what can he get passed in the united states senate? the president wants to propose an energy tax.
the president wants more stimulus spending, there will be no -- doesn't create jobs. i would expect the united states senate to go ahead and take it up. if the president wants more tax hikes that destroy jobs, then as democrat allies in the senate ought to take it up. this isn't the agenda that many americans are looking for, and i think many in the president's own party won't support those ideas. in the house we're going to continue to focus on what the american people's top priorities are -- creating jobs and cutting spending. for the last two years the house has done its work. we've passed legislation to tackle the tough challenges that america faces only to see our senate colleagues do nothing. well, those days are over. the house will continue to meet other obligations, but senate democrats must begin to do their work. that's why we passed the no budget no pay act, requiring the senate to pass a budget for the first time in four years.
and that's why we're going to insist that they finally pass a plan to replace the president's sequester. this sequester was the president's idea. his party needs to follow through on their plans to replace it. with that i'll answer your questions. >> speaker boehner, senate democrats are going to unveil their plan today to avert the sequester for 10 months with a mix of spending cuts to agriculture subsidies and defense and some tax increases, notably the buffett rule. would you rather see the sequester kick in than accept a deal that includes some new tax revenue? >> if the senate passes a plan, we'll be happy to look at it. if they don't pass a plan there is no reason for me to comment on what they will or will not do. >> former senator chuck hagel is at risk for being filibuster
in the senate. it would be the first time that it would be filibustered. do you think it's important for them to filibuster mr. hagel's nomination? >> i remind you that this is the house side of the capitol and we're not involved in the senate nomination fights. so you can ask the senators involved. >> the republicans leading the charge there. >> and my friends, i might say. >> speaker boehner, you have noted that the house has passed legislation to replace the squer, but that legislation expired at the -- sequester, but that legislation expired at the end of the 112th congress. if they pass a bill, it will have the -- how will the house handle it since you don't have a bill? >> listen, we passed bail twice to replace the sequester. our position is clear. we've outlined it. it's time for the senate to do their work. we can -- if they're willing to pass a bill, we'll find some way to work with them to
address this problem. i've made it perfectly clear, though, the sequester, i don't like it. no one should like it. but the sequester is there because the president insisted that it be there. where is the president's plan to replace the sequester that he insisted upon? >> twice now the senate passed wide bipartisan margin the violence against women act. what's your timeline over here? >> our leadership, continuing to work with the committee of jurisdiction, looking at finding ways to deal with this legislation. we're fully committed to doing everything we can to protect women in our society. and i expect the house will act in a timely fashion in some way. no decision has been made about how we -- whether we take up the senate bill or move a version of our own version of
the bill. >> [inaudible] >> it may or may not. >> your message this morning about the senate going first on the president's agenda extend to immigration for will the house -- >> there is -- as you heard me say, there is bipartisan talk -- talks under way, both in the senate and in the house. and i've done everything i can to try to encourage those bipartisan conversations to continue. i don't think no decision has been made who should go first. i think we're way too far down the road. there are a lot of issues that we have to deal with. our border is not secure. the ability of our government to enforce the law is -- has its share of problems as well. so there are a number of issues that have to be resolved here. and so let's not get too far down the road. i want my colleagues to continue to work together to
see if they can't come to a solution that's acceptable here in the house. >> mr. speaker, you mentioned jobs. what did you think of the president's proposal to -- fix it now, put people back to work, repairing the nation's infrastructure? >> as you are well aware, i worked very diligently over the last couple years to try to grabble with our infrastructure -- grapple with our infrastructure problems in america. the problem is chiefly one of resources, and it's still trying to find a funding source to repair the nation's infrastructure is still a big gold mine. and the president talked about infrastructure, but he didn't talk about how to pay for it. it's easy to go out there and be santa claus. at some point somebody's got to pay the bill. i've pushed mr. shuster, the
new chairman of our house transportation and infrastructure committee, to work on this issue. i'm committed to working to find funding source so we can begin to repair america's aging infrastructure. >> mr. speaker, you don't like the sequester and you've made that clear. if it goes into effect at the end of the month, how do you handle what will in effect be treated by many, many of your republican members as the new baseline and the c.r. following immediately on that? it seems when the sequester goes into effect, apart from the cuts that will take place, it enormously complicates your ability to agree with democrats over basic spending bills just a couple of weeks later. will -- if the sequester goes into effect, will that be the new spending baseline that you'll operate off of or will you treat that as temporarily? >> i will tell you the same thing i told my republican
colleagues. until there will be cuts and reforms to balance the budget over the next 10 years, period. >> mr. speaker [inaudible] have you started bipartisan taugs on the sequester? >> i told senator reid this morning the same thing i've told you. pure and simple. even though you spoke up before i called on you i called on you because you were patient. >> the president said he would take action on climate change unless the house doesn't pass something. will the republicans block him from doing that if a bill doesn't get passed? >> i don't know what actions the president thinks he can take. i don't think he has the ability to propose a national energy tax on americans without
the authority of congress. so he may attempt to do this but i'm not sure how much he can really do. >> mr. speaker, what do you think about hal rogers' plan to include a full defense appropriations bill in the next continuing resolution? >> there are a lot of options. there are a lot of options of how we move a continuing resolution. but no decisions have been made about how to do that or when to do that. thank you. >> what did you get mrs. boehner for valentine's day? >> [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> speaker boehner this morning. earlier today during morning hour, the democratic whip steny hoyer criticized house republican leaders not addressing the sequester earlier in the session. here's what he had to say. some 32 years. this is the least confidence building congress, last congress and this congress in
which i have ever served. it is taking us from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. it is creating cliffs where no cliffs ought to exist. and they undermine the confidence of business, america, americans and indeed the rest of the world that needs a stable and secure america to ensure that we keep the kind of stability that americans want here at home and around the world. now, we will be dealing with a bill today and tomorrow that could be considered in an hour. we are going to take two days to consider it. and while we consider that, while we fiddle, while the sequester threatens to burn our economy, jobs and confidence and we do nothing and we have not done anything to avoid the sequester for the last seven
weeks of this year and nothing in this congress. as a matter of fact, other than completing the work of making sure the folks who were damaged by sandy were assisted, which should have been done in the last congress, we've done nothing here of real substance in seven weeks, but we're about to confront the sequester. i want every american to know, i want every person who relice on the federal government, and that is mainly -- relies on the federal government, and that is mainly all of us, that if democrats were in charge of this house, the sequester would not go into effect. why? because we would adopt an alternative policy that would cut spending so that we can move towards deficit and debt reduction, which we need to do as a country, and we would make
a balanced proposal that the senate democrats will offer this day and that we wanted to offer and chris van hollen offered last night in the budget committee but was not made in order. in his state of the union speech, the president talked about the american people deserve a vote. he's right. the american people deserve to know how members are going to vote on issues of consequence to them, their families and their lives and their jobs and their country. but we were denied a vote last week on this i shall knew which was a substitute for the sequester and we are again denied this week a substitute for the sequester. now, some of my republican friends try to say, oh, it's the president who wanted the sequester. that is dead flat wrong.
rob neighbors did mention the sequester after the republicans passed the sequester in this house in july of 2011. they call it the cut, cap and balance legislation, and its fallback position was sequester. it was a policy that all i think but two republicans voted for when it passed this house. it was a policy that they promoted and supported. it is a bad policy. it's an irrational policy. it is a policy that will have great adverse consequences. at a town meeting i said a sequester works like this -- if you have a food budget and a
movie budget and somebody loses their job, the sequester says you cut food by 10% and movies by 10%. no rational american family would do that. they say this month we are not going to the movies or six months we are not going to the movies but we make sure we put food on our table. sequester says, no, we cut food by 10% and movies by 10%. sequester is an irrational response to our failure as a congress, correct, to get our finances on a sustainable path. we need to do that, and democrats are suggesting a balanced way to do it. and by the way, every bipartisan commission that has dealt with this issue has recommended a balanced process to get from where we are to where we need to be.
i would hope that we would spend next week -- we're going to go on break next week as if we've done our job. we haven't. we ought to be spending time today, tomorrow, next week and the week thereafter in avoiding the irrationality of the sequester process, but i have a list of republicans here, all of whom sebring it on. the sequester's ok. well, if we do the sequester we're going to find out it's not ok. so, mr. speaker, i urge the majority leader, i urge the speaker to bring forth substantive legislation that is balanced which will avoid the sequester taking place. it's bad for our people, bad for our country and
>> that's steny hoyer from this morning. the house will be back briefly and then back for legislative work at 1:30 eastern to begin a bill to freeze the federal workers. it has been in effect since 2010 but president allowed a half percent increase starting march 27. today's bill would override that executive order. also debate, rules for today's bill would include a provision to allow the house to consider a resolution condemning north korea's recent nuclear test. live coverage here on c-span when they come back at noon. over in the senate, meanwhile, harry reid yesterday filed a motion to limit debate and force vote on the hagel nomination. harry reid said today, though, that republicans are mounting a full-scale filibuster of the hagel nomination. he said that there's never been a filibuster of a secretary of defense in the country's history. discussion on the nomination continues. senator leahy on the senate floor now and that is live on
c-span2. also coming up live on booktv.org later today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, stephen hess who wrote "whatever happened to the washington reporters: 1978-2012." he interviewed journalist who is were covered the federal government and washington and 30 years later talked to 283 of those to find out where things went on in their career and the fields they covered. that discussion with stephen hess gets under way at 7:00 and that's at booktv.org. >> we have a habit in this country, if i may say, now of glossing over presidents. we decided, some people, that they're balancedying -- bald eagles and they have to be treated as symbols of the country. what that means, though, is you have -- you have a smoothing over of their rough edges, and there's a feeling among modern presidents that they have a
right to a certain ven ration and that ven ration will be located in their presidential library, and if they're gone, their children in some cases and their former allies, their lieutenants, who live longer than presidents because they're younger, they continue this. in fact, in many ways they're even more if he robberiesly committed to the legacy, not only because it involves them, but because the old man is gone and they want to show their loyalty. the problem is, what does the government do, because it's responsible for these libraries, when you have a flawed president? >> in part two of a conversation with timothy naftali, he tells the problems he faced as president of the presidential library on "q&a." >> after president-elect andrew jackson's wife died, her niece, emily donellson, assumed the role of first lady.
>> emily was perfect. for all the negatives they loved emily. the women all liked her. and as it was to happen, the women's opinion more than people thought in washington. but she -- emily became his acting first lady. she entertained beautifully. she was polished. some people thought oh, she's from -- rude and rustic from the country. she knew exactly how to do things. >> emily donellson, one of the ladies who served as first lady in c-span's new series, "first ladies: influence and image" in a first of its kind project for television. season one begins this monday, presidents' kay, at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> the house in briefly at noon. legislative work starting at 1:30. up till noon part of this
morning's "washington journal" focusing on foreign policies issues ahead on capitol hill. host: and now on your screen is representative elliot engel, democrat of new york and in the 113th congress the ranking member, the top democrat on the foreign affairs committee. representative engel, as always, we appreciate you being on the "washington journal." from that perch in the foreign affairs committee, what's your -- what are some of your issues this year that you'd like to confront? guest: well, obviously the president spoke at the state of the union the other night, talked about winding down the war in afghanistan finally and removing american troops. when the troops are actually all removed, still negotiations between us and the afghanis about what american presence will be afterwards. but that's, i think, something that the american people are tired of and happy to see winding down. we also, of course, have the
volatile middle east, where we have the arab spring and egypt and syria, of course, in the throes of a civil war. assad brutally killing his own people. clearly he's going to go. the question is who comes in after him. is it a group that's even worse, radical group, or is it some kind of a coalition that we can support that would steer more towards democracy? we have, of course -- host: what are you seeing over there? guest: well, we're seeing all of the above. we hope that we can influence the democratic elemented to be -- to lead a post-assad syria, and we have recognized the opposition that we think should be the group to lead them there. but you have jihadists fighting side by side. it's very difficult to figure out who's who and what's what. that's really the very, very
big problem. you have iran right there making trouble as usual with the proxy hezbollah in lebanon and also syria. iran is on the verge of having a nuclear weapon which cannot happen. if iran has a nuclear weapon, we will see a race in that area for nuclear weapons, from egypt, turkey, any -- united arab emrats, saudi arabia. that's something we don't want to see. it's usually difficult and there's no reason to think it's going to be any different, but we're the united states of america and i think we're there and we need to be engaged. i don't favor putting our heads in the sand and pretending that we can somehow not look at the problems we have external low. host: you mentioned iran. the president had about two
lines in his state of the union on iran. were you satisfied with what you had to say? guest: well, it was a long speech and i think he had a lot of things to say. the president has said time and time again that it's his policy not to allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. he said that many, many times and i believe him. i don't think that we can afford containment of iran having a nuclear weapon. i just don't think we can. it's not only a matter of iran's threat to israel. it's iran's threat to europe, to nato because they are geographically much closer to iran than the united states is, but it's also, again, as i mentioned before, the fact if iran got a nuclear weapon, the saudis would move as quibly as they could to get -- quickly as they could to get one. so would egypt and turkey and others. i think it would create tremendous instability. iran is the largest supporter of terrorism around the world. we just had a -- not only
terrorism, not only islamic fundamentalist terrorism, but they've aligned themselves with north korea, another bad player. and north korea, of course, just set off another weapons test for nuclear weapon. provocative and rattling cages. and so they are allies, brothers in blood, so to speak. that's another hot spot that the president's going to have to really worry about. host: representative engel, the president's making his first trip to israel, another trip to the middle east in a month or so. guest: yes. i'm delighted he's going to israel. he hasn't gone his first term, but many presidents haven't gone until their second term. some have not gone at all. so i think it's a very, very good statement, a good sign. the u.s. and israel are important allies. share democratic principles. israel is the only democracy in the middle east, and i think they rely on us and they like
all things american. i think it's fitting that our president is going there to meet with them. host: couple more issues on the table before we move to calls. the situation in malli, hearings are being -- mali, hearings are being held on capitol hill about this. how do you foresee or what do you see as the u.s. role? guest: we have hearings in our foreign affairs committee later today. in fact, when i leave here i am going to go to these hearings and it's very, very important. what happened with mali, it's a state in africa. never before really was controlled by extremists or terrorists. and suddenly they moved in north to south and basically took the country over. and that was not something that could stand because it wouldn't just end in mali. they would be able to expand their very harsh, harsh rule and terroristic rule to other neighboring states. france, which used to be the
colonizes of mali, have ties to the country, moved in with their troops. the united states is giving support behind the scenes. and, look, i think when it comes to fighting terrorism or extremism, i think all the countries of the world, the west for sure, has a stake in it. and so i think it's in our best interest to try to help the french, to try to get the extremists out and put mali back to where it can function normally again for the people that live there. when france drove the extremists out, there was tremendous relief by the local population there who did not want these extremists and hopefully this is unfortunately the new era. we got to watch out for wherever extremism and terrorism, al qaeda rears its ugly head or al qaeda affiliates. i think the united states needs to provide support. by the way, we need to do that in syria as well, in the opinion of the chair, because i
think assad is -- in my opinion, because i think assad is history. we need to make sure that we need to try to help build a post-assad democratic syria. i have worked with syria for many years. i was the author of the syria accountability bill and was signed by president bush in 2004 and it slapped sanctions on syria on the assad rejeem for a number of things -- regime for a number of things, occupying lebanon at that time. and they've just been bad players. i think we have a stake in making sure that that country comes out well. host: the numbers are on the screen if you'd like to participate in our conversation with representative elliott engel of new york. ept -- eliot engel of new york. representative, when you say support the rebels in syria, what does that entail? guest: it does not include u.s. ground troops.
i think we're tired of it and i think right flee so. there are -- rightfully so. we helped nato, for instance, in libya when we got rid of gaddafi. we didn't have troops on the ground but we were able to provide certain things that only we can provide. i would hopefully look for that kind of help. i'm right now crafting legislation about syria to see what we can do, first of all, to make sure that assad doesn't continue to murder his people, continue to cling to power on blood. but also post-assad syria to try to see if we can have democracy and not let the radical elements take over. host: first call for representative engel comes from mark, a republican in north dakota. mark, please go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i would disagree with your statement, mr. engel, that iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism. based on what was said in the
senate judiciary committee, senate jon kyl said that with a habism which is the -- wahabism which is the royal family sect in syria, he said saudi arabia is, quote, the monetary lifeblood of today's international terrorists, unquote. this was backed up by senator schumer who said that the saudi government must repudiate the extremism and that they're using madrasses around the world to teach this extreme violence against the west. and little more currently, the foreign affairs committee in the house that you're part of had a hearing and the late richard holbrooke, which was obama's special envoy to the af-pak region, was told by representative rohrabacher still in 2009 saudi arabia was still the number one supplier of money.
host: all right. let's get our response, mark. guest: well, you're quite right in what you say, but it's not really a contest. the saudis have played in my opinion duplicitous game for many years but they're an important country and they work with us and we have to work with what we have. i think that they are not exporting. it's not their government's policy to export terrorism. the way it's clearly iran's policy through its proximate oh, hezbollah in lebanon. they're helping hamas in gaza. both terrorist organizations. they are collaborating with north korea. and they're doing everything possible to try to keep assad, who's murdered his own people, at least 65,000 people have been murdered by eye sad and the iranians are complicit with him. so i think iran is clearly the worst player in the region and
the worst player i would say in the world. i'm the leading -- in the world of the leading sponsor of terror. i think saudi arabia is unfortunately one of them. host: sea of tranquility tweets into you, representative engel. how has our relationship changed and evolved with russia during the obama administration? what are the positives and negatives? guest: i think what has happened with russia, putin, who is the leader of russia, who came from the k.g.b., who came from the old soviet union, in my estimation is going back to his bad old ways. there was great hope for democracy in russia and nominally there are still elections and there's democracy but putin has consolidated power and has made it very difficult for democrats in russia to be able to have democratic government. and that's the big worry. and of course when you look at
what russia has done and what china has done in the united nations, they have wielded their veto power and made it difficult for us to slap sanctions on iran, to help prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon. they have not been good players. and so i've seen russian democracy slide backwards. as long as putin is there, and it's really a shame because i think the russian people really want democracy. and i think putin is trying to be like the old communist leaders that we all remember, khrushchev and breff nevada, trying to rule with an iron fist, and i think it's a shame because it really strangles russian democracy. we see less and less freedoms for its people. it's really a shame. so we need to be engaged with them. they are an important country, but we shouldn't have blinders on either. host: we must do better, another tweet. the nonsense surrounding the
hagel nomination has made a mockery of our democratic principles. thanks, g.o.p. although you in the house have nothing to do with this nomination. what are your thoughts about senator hagel being defense secretary? guest: well, i think if you start a precedent to say that you need 60 votes in the senate for a confirmation of any cabinet member, i think it's a very bad precedent to set. i've had some questions about senator hagel, but he's entitled to an up or down vote and majority should prevail. i just think it's -- host: how would you vote if you were in the senate guest: well, i'm not and i don't like hypotheticals, but i think the bottom line here though is once you start with this nomination and using all kinds of other issues to kind of cloud it and say that there needs to be 60 votes, i think that's very, very precedent.
i think it's penny wise and pound foolish. they may block this nomination. i think they need to think seriously before they raise the threshold to 60 for this. host: john is in philadelphia on our independent line. you are on with representative eliot engel, representative of new york. caller: i have three questions. and i'd appreciate it if you let me get through them. it's about israel and palestinian. aren't the israeli settlements on palestinian land? a violation of law. and do you think that the u.s. support of them influence our peace making -- host: is that your questions? caller: is israel, do you think israel is proliferating nuclear warheads. if so as a country who proliferates, aren't we not allowed to provide them aid in
terms of defense? host: all right. we'll get answers, john. guest: well, first of all, let me say i believe in the two-state solution to the palestinian-israel icon flict. it's them living side by side with peace. security guarantees for israel and a stage for the palestinians. i think in order to get there you need to have both sides sitting face to face having direct negotiations, no preconditions, having all issues on the table and having the united states and other friendly countries trying to move the sides along. what you have now is a situation where the palestinian side is refusing to come and negotiate face to face with israel with no preconditions. what they're demanding instead is all kinds of preconditions that israel must do this or stop doing that before they'll even sit down and talk with israel. now, a lot of these issues are
final status issues. you don't make them preconditions before you even sit and talk with your adversary. that's the problem i have. i think we need some more leadership on the palestinian side who's willing to just sit down and all issues really need to be on the table. i'm for whatever deal the veals and the palestinians can work -- israels and the palestinians can work out. the conflict has lasted too long and we need to have a two-state solution. but when the palestinians are putting up all these preconditions before they'll even sit down and talk to israel, that shows me they're not really serious about talking. so i hope that the president's visit to israel and some of the other countries in the middle east will help prod negotiations. the only way any conflict that's been held around the world, whether it's northern ireland, you name it, it was resolved by two parties sitting face to face, negotiating a
settlement, no preconditions and hammering out settlement. that's really what i'd like to see. everything else is really superfluous, because everybody has their own inference of international law or nuclear weapons. none of that is important. what's important is we need a two-state solution. we need the parties sitting face to face. israel is willing to do it. i'd like to see the palestinians be a little more forthright in that regard. host: as far as nuclear weapons in israel and u.s. support of israel, do you have anything more to say on that? guest: israel is a sovereign state and it's been rumored about nuclear weapons. they've never admitted to it. we don't tell other countries, you know, whether they should admit to something or not. i think everybody kind of knows that israel has some nuclear capabilities. host: what about the settlements issue that john asked about? guest: settlements, i come from a position, let's look at a
little bit of history here. in 1947, the united nations resolution took historic palestinian and split it into what it called the jewish state and an arab state. that was your two-state solution back in 1947. 1948 israel declared independence and the palestinians could have had their palestinian state. it was part of the u.n. resolution. instead, the arab countries attacked israel and tried to destroy it before it was ever a country. there were no settlements until 1967. those were 19 years. and, again, the palestinians could have had a state. they chose not to do it. so the settlement issue is an issue that has to be worked out between israel and the palestinians. there were very generous proposals, in my opinion, in both 2000 and 2001 under bill clinton to give the palestinians a state of their own, 97% of the west bank, 3% of israel profits so they would have the same land and arafat
was the palestinian leader at the time, turned it down. olmert, who was prime minister of israel in 2008, had secret discussions, offered an even more generous package. palestinian state, billions of dollars in aid, and the palestinians turned it down again. they keep turning down chances to have a state, and then they complain that they don't have a state. so you really have to wonder if after all these years why are they turning it town? is it they don't recognize that there ought to be jewish state of israel in the region? you really have to wonder. so people who say settlements are the obstacle to peace, i don't think so. i think settlements are one of the disagreements and the issue of settlements clearly has to be hammered out and negotiated along with everything else. but i think the bottom line is the arab states and the palestinians have got to come to grips that the jewish state of israel is here to stay and the minute they recognize that
i think everything else is a lot easier. i think again there needs to be a two-state solution with compromises on both sides with each side listening to the other side, no preconditions, face-to-face talks with the united states and other friendly countries prodding the two sides along. host: representative engel, on tuesday you were quoted in a "washington post" story about the state of the union speech and members coming in and sitting along the aisle so they can greet the president. and the quote that was attributed to you was that when george w. bush would come down the aisle you'd always shake his hand and say, stand by israel or something to that effect. did you stand in the aisle this time to see president obama, and if so, what were you able to say to him? guest: i've done that since i've been in congress. it was very, very funny because it never would have dawned on me to do it. when i came to congress there was a chairman named sonny montgomery of mississippi.
he'd been there for many, many years. i was the elected president of the freshman democrats. it was back in 1989. one of my colleagues who also came from mississippi said to me that chairman montgomery had invited him to sit next to him because chairman montgomery and the first president bush were friends when they both served in the house of representatives and that the first president bush, it was his first state of the union message. he was going to say hello to chairman montgomery and the chairman was going to pull my colleague over to shake the president's hand. and he said to me, if you sat in the third seat, i'm sure the chairman would pull you over. i went over to the chairman. i said, is this true? does this happen? >> part of this morning's "washington journal." you can see all of it judge in our video library at c-span.org. the u.s. house coming in briefly next and then they will be back at 1:30 to begin legislative work which would include a rule for a bill that would include the federal worker pay freeze through this year.
the freeze had been in effect since 2010. but the president issued an executive order saying that he'd like a half percent pay increase starting march 27. rule debate today but that gets under way at 1:30. live coverage of the house on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer today will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as we meditate on all the blessings on life, we especially pray for the blessing of peace in our lives and in our world, our fervent prayer, o god, is that people will learn to live
together in reconciliation and respect so that the terrors of war and dictatorial abuse will be no more. as you have created each person, we pray that you guide our hearts and minds that every person of every place and background might focus on your great gift of life and so learn to live in unify -- in unity. may your special blessesings -- blessings be upon the members of this assembly and the important, sometimes difficult work they do. give them wisdom and charity that they might work together for the common good. may all that is done this day in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and amounses to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge today will be led by the gentleman from colorado, mr.
gardner. mr. gardner: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: madam speaker, in february, 2009, corporal kyle carpenter, a constituent and resident of lexington, south carolina, enlisted in the united states marine corps and went on to complete recruit training at the marine corps recruit depot at paris island, south carolina. a little over a year later, corporal carpenter was deployed to afghanistan to protect our families in operation enduring freedom. on november 21, 2010, corporal
carpenter suffered devastating injuries when an enemy hand grenade exploded. because of his heroic actions, corporal carpenter potentially saved the lives of countless others and has been decorated with a purple heart and awarded the combat action ribbon. i have had the privileging of visiting with kyle, his mother and father. throughout his recovery with the dedicated staff at walter reed and bethesda, kyle has served as a testament to hard work and valor. today, kyle is an intern serving with chairman jeff miller of the veterans' affairs committee. i have no doubt because of corporal carpenter's service, american families are more secure. i want to thank kyle and the carpenter family for your dedication to our nation. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: and the gentlelady is recognized.
ms. hahn: thank you, madam speaker. when i first came to congress i didn't vote for that that bill that created the threat of sequestration. i thought it was a bad idea then. i think it's a bad idea now. automatic triggers that institute automatic cuts across the board in spending in this country are a bad idea. this manmade crisis is now threatening both our nation's economy and our national security. here is just a couple ways that that would happen. 10% of the f.a.a.'s work force of 40,000 would be furloughed on any given day resulting in reduced air traffic controllers, longer delays and economic losses for air transportation and tourism. less air traffic controllers means fewer flights which means less tourism and that means fewer jobs in hotels and restaurants, a ripple effect that could cripple our economy. the coast guard would be cut by nearly 25%, jeopardizing chair
time and navigation safety. the safe flow of commerce along u.s. waterways and drastically reduce our ability to fight drug trafficking. the clock is ticking once again. we cannot take our economy and our safety backwards at a time when the american people have worked to build it up. let's act now to get rid of this terrible sequestration. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. young: madam chair, this is an injustice the secretary of interior and the fish and wildlife have done to a village called king cole in alaska. we had hearings, we had the land transfer, we had everything going to work so these people could be safe. be safe to go to hospitals, be safe to fly out when the weather was bad. it was an agreement between the state, the congress and the village of king cole. along comes fish and wildlife and denies them the trade that
has to be necessary for this transportation corridor. i'm urging my senators to put a whole in a new secretary of interior so she's not confirmed until this secretary can in fact sign the law to allow them to have safety for once and for all. this process has been going on for more than 20 years. we finally got to a solution. it's being stopped by this administration. the lack of knowledge about human life and we'd rather protect something that does not exist. this refuge has over 300 miles of road in it, but these people are being denied and need the safety. i'm asking the secretary salazar in fact to take and do his job, overturn the fish and wildlife's recommendation, allow my people to be safe, make sure they can continue to live their lives without the threat of the weather when it can be solved by an act of the secretary. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, two years ago today, the people
of bahrain took to the streets in peaceful protest. they called for democratic freedoms and an end to human rights abuses. the government of bahrain responded with violence. it killed more than 30 and imprisoned and tortured thousands of others. even doctors who treated protestors were arrested, tortured and prosecuted. two years later, the situation has not improved. in fact, it may be getting worse. more protestors have died, prisoners remain in jail. despite an active public relations campaign, the government of bahrain is not, and i repeat, is not making a good faith effort to meet the legitimate demands of its people. the obama administration needs to change course with bahrain and begin implementing a policy that holds bahrain accountable and promotes democratic freedoms so we are not here again saying the same things on the third anniversary of the protests. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gardner: madam speaker, i rise on the occasion of auto flight northern colorado's ninth flight to washington, d.c., bringing veterans of world war ii, korea and vietnam to see their memorials. on behalf of a grateful delegation, state and country, i welcome these heroes. the 122 veterans on this flight included 37 from world war ii, 80 from the korean conflict, 40 from the vietnam war and one from the war on iraq. eight of these veterans wear the purple heart. this was founded in 2005. it provides the opportunity for veterans to visit washington, d.c. free of any cost to them and their families to see the memorials that were built in their honor. the program originally intended to honor world war ii veterans had developed to include veterans from several major conflicts. today we honor those veterans as they make the journey to washington to visit the memorials that serve as a symbol of a great nation. no statue can convey the
sacrifices our veterans made to our country. much has been asked of these sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen and time and time again they've delivered. the freedoms endowed on us by our creator, protected by our constitution and enjoyed bull all americans must not be taken for gronted. today we honor the sacrifices of those who -- and i have a statement and i ask unanimous consent it be submitted to the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gardner: please thank these people and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: sequester, well, that's an inside the beltway jargon. it means stupid, indiscriminant across-the-board budget cuts. coast guard rescue and cut things that are obsolete, registration for a draft that doesn't exist, same percent. now, the republicans are pointing fingers but i think the fingers will get pointed
back at them. they are calling it the obama sequester. come on. don't they remember their pledge to grover norquist that has forever bound them to starving the federal government of revenue? now, look where that got us when they threatened to default on the debt. it got us the sequester. they refused to compromise and forced us into another self-made arbitrary crisis. no, it's not an obama sequester. it's a grover norquister. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, as the sun was rising in the iraqi desert, three dozen mortgage arse rained down on camp liberty. camp liberty is where innocent iranian exaisles, including women and children, live. this unprovoked attack left six people dead and dozens wounded. now, who was responsible? was it the iraqis, the iranians? looks to me that both governments should be held
accountable. these dissidents stand for an iran free of the extreme mullahs and the tyrant ahmadinejad. over 3,000 unarmed freedom fighters currently live at camp liberty and remain in imminent danger. the iraqi government has proven on more than one occasion it is unwilling to protect iranian dissidents in this country. the united nations has a responsibility to ensure these people are moved to safer locations and even other countries. not one more life should be stolen for those that protect the oppressive regime and the little fellow from the desert, ahmadinejad, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to congratulate the new haven unified school district in union citi in the 15th congressional district for being named one of 16 nationwide winners in the u.s.
department of education's race to the top grant program. the district will receive over $29 million in funding, which will provide training and equipment to support the outstanding students, teachers and staff of new haven unified. this is a tremendous achievement, and i am proud of the school's superintendent, kerry mcveigh, and school board members who had the good sense and worked hard to apply for this competitive grant. i know the 13,000 students from new haven unified will benefit from the technology and educational improvements in their schools. and union city, this critical funding will help to expand after-school programs, student support, access to health care for the most vulnerable students and provide teachers with trainings and techniques needed to improve our classrooms. mr. swalwell: i'm proud to represent them, students, educators and administrators and look forward to hearing of their many successes. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition?
>> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, this week president obama outlined his vision for america. job-killing tax hikes, job-killing national energy tax, job-killing wage controls and job-killing stimulus spending. equally telling were the items that the president did not mention. he offered no plan to pay off our $16 trillion of debt, no plan to replace the sequester cuts to national defense that he proposed, no plan to save our broken social safety nets and no plan to restore the confidence americans in the real economy. mr. stutzman: president obama believes that every problem can be solved with big government and another tax hike. president clinton once declared that the era of big government is over. not this president. president obama believes more government is the solution to all of our problems. it's time to get this economy moving again, and my colleagues in the house are ready to work
toward real solutions that encourage job growth, empower individuals and break washington's spending habits. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. mr. sires: madam speaker, if we face yet another fiscal cliff in two weeks, it is imperative that this chamber produces a real solution to ward off a financial disaster that could deeply impact the american people. the idea behind sequestration was to create a worst-case scenario that will put both sides to work together and find a balanced approach in passing a realistic budget reducing of our deficits. instead of setting the stage for yet another battle to be solved, we should be focused on creating jobs and growing our economy. if sequestration goes forward, programs and services that millions of americans rely on like head start, the w.i.c. program and even fema will be
decimated by drastic cuts in our funding. additionally, sequestration will slash critical support to police who keep our streets safe, our air traffic controllers who monitor our skies and inspectors to ensure that the food we eat is safe. instead of jeopardizing critical services to our citizens, we need to begin to work on approach that will avoid sequestration while senseably reducing our deficit. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? mr. cramer: i seek recognition to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cramer: i rise today to pay tribute to the legacy of a treasured north dakotan who touched the lives of his wonderful family and all who knew him. dr. ben clayburgh left the earth on january 21, my birthday.
he was a u.s. army private, a leader. above all he was a healer and a tip lo mat. he will be remembered. after serving in the u.s. army as a flight surgeon he established himself in fwran forks as a trusted man in medicine and politics, two of his greatest passion he served as north dakota's republican national committee man for 12 years and was honored to become a presidential elector for george w. bush. his picture hangs in the hall of fame in the ronald reagan center in bismarck and his memory will be -- will remain with those who knew and loved him. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? >> annapolis, -- madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection. ms. hanabusa: i want to honor my constituent, he established the provost marshal office and police department that gained notoriety by many elements of the united states government during a time of uncertainty and many wartime missions. through mr. devane nee's leadership, the provost's office has been recognized as a leading law enforcement and security department. his service as a fall employee is built on a 30-year career in the army. in 1953, at the age of 17, he enlisteded in rhode island national guard during the korean conflict to join his peers in doing his part to serve america. a year later he switched to active duty and was sent to location in japan as a military policeman. as co-chair of the u.s. army
council, he has provided invaluable service to our retiree families and facilitated the understanding by them of the ever-improving medical systems we deploy. i ask you to join me as we offer our gratitude today to a man who dedicated his life in service to our cupry. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker,deja vu all over again. we are weeks from sequestration yet the house is about to leave town for a nine-day recess. that's unacceptable. we should be working every day to avoid this sequester and to avert it. mr. kildee: my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem determined to make sequestration a reality. democrats stand ready to work in a bipartisan manner to avoid
this i met with federal employees from michigan who are deeply concerned about how these cuts affect middle class families, students, and seniors. 750,000 jobs eliminated by october. 20% reduction in the pentagon' operating budget. 70,000 children kicked out of head start. 21,000 fewer food and drug inspections. four million fewer meals served through the senior nutrition programs. we need to find a balanced and responsible approach to reduce our deficit for sure but not let irrational, across the board cuts take effect. doing so will devastate this economic recovery. madam speaker, i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: i join in concern about the budget. the institutes of health would be cut in a major way. when i was a child i had polio and it has effects on people who had polio in later years. but because of the government's research, the salk vaccine save maryland families and children from that devastating disease and around the world it's been successful too. there are other diseases, heart disease, alzheimer's, cancer, that the national institutes of health is primarily responsible for research. it's health i'm worried about and also jobs. the major driver of jobs is research and cooperate in education, infrastructure spend big the federal government. most of our great advancements, whether railroads or the internet or health care, have come through federal government partnerships with the pivet sector. we need continue those to create a middle class of consumers that
can grow our economy out of these problems. it's not just president obama who says it but what i call the three wise men, krugman, stieglits and adam wright. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for onemen -- one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: more and more voices are being raised about the devastating impact of the sequester a self-inflicted wound of this congress because we could not come together as the american people corrected -- directed us to do. men and women who stand on the front lines protecting this nation will be in jeopardy. those who depend on head start fund, early education funding and title 1 funds and housing funds, opportunities for young people to go to college, will be in jeopardy.
so i think it is unfortunate that we are discussing and debating on the floor today h.r. 273 to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for federal employees. all those people who put themselves on the line for us, who have already had a pay freeze and all we're talking about is a .05, none of that will bring down the debt or help the deficit. we're just making noise. what we should be doing is focusing oncoming together around a growth and innovation budget and bringing the deficit down. what we should be doing is honoring the sandy hook and other victims and passing real gun prevention, gun violence prevention, universal background checks, storing guns. madam speaker, let us do the job the american people sent us to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the
at a time when we have a war going on in afghanistan, we have about 70,000 troops there, we have a nuclear weapon that was detonated in north korea a few days ago -- they're threatening, as they have publicly on other occasions, but after this bomb was put off -- set off, that they were designee it to attack us -- that they were doing it to attack us. that the situation in iran with all of their very, very militaristic statements against us. all over the world america is involved in matters dealing with our military. mr. president, i met the night before last with the man that killed osama bin laden in my office talking about his 16-year career as a seal, the places he went around the world protecting
the interests of the united states. it wasn't just in afghanistan, not in pakistan, all over the world. to think that we have now in the senate a situation where we're going to wind up without a secretary of defense at this time. we had all the talk -- you know, we have some questions about senator hagel. keep in mind, mr. president, he is a republican. but we have some questions to ask. but, publicly, a significant number of republican senators said that they would not filibuster. remember, there has never in the history of the country been a filibuster of the defense p -- f
the defense secretary nominee -- never. but now -- i had to file cloture on this. now, all -- not all the shows, but a number of shows attacked me last night. we told -- we told reid and all the people that we shouldn't agree to the rule changes because this is what we have going on. i'm ignoring that, mr. president. but it's shocking that my republican colleagues would leave the nation without a fully empowered secretary of defense during all the things we have going on in the world, including a war. several of my colleagues requested a letter from the president. the letter was sent at their request to the chairman of the committee, which is standard procedure here. senator levin answered all of
their questions. they said, well, we need that letter so we can vote. one stall after another. now i'm told that the letter was sent to the chairman of the committee, and that's not good enough. they want it sent to individual senators. now, this isn't high school getting ready for a football game or some play that's being produced at high school. this is -- we're trying to confirm somebody to run the defenses of our country, the military of our country. that letter was received yesterday about 4:00, so now, as i indicated, they want something else. mr. president, the committee of jurisdiction, the armed services committee, they have extensive information on chuck hagel. they have as much information
that's available on the benghazi situation, testimony from the administrative officials, from multiple committees, from an independent review board, secretary clinton testified, secretary panetta, who is going to be leaving his job in less than two hours, chairman of the joint chiefs martin dempsey, and others have already testified regarding the athat can claimed four -- the attack that claimed four american lives. chuck hagel had nothing to do with the attack in benghazi. the administration hasn't been forthcoming is outlandish. there are serious consequences to this delay. consequences that are occurring right now. the president is making some important decisions about afghanistan. he announced to the world just a day or two ago that 34,000 troops will be coming home during the next year from afghanistan.
we're negotiating with the afghan government regarding how we'll support them beyond 2014. negotiations are going on right now. i heard today from former senator john kerry that he's headed for the middle east. why? syria. that's something else that the secretary of defense has to be concerned about. next week while we're on recess, while we're on recess, they're having a nato defense ministers meeting. they'll be in brussels? what to do? to coordinate ou our approach on afghanistan. it's going to be somewhat unusual that the united states isn't represented by the secretary of defense there. we won't have one if we don't
get this thing done this week. i am a sure they're going to focus on how to end the war responsibly in afghanistan, how our alliance will work together through the time of transition, how we can ensure afghanistan doesn't become a safe haven for al qaeda again. we need a secretary of defense at that meeting. it sends a terrible signal to the hundreds of thousands of troops that we have around the world, military personnel here in the united states that we're not going to have a secretary of defense. republicans are telling our troops, well, you can have a leader later. what's going on in europe, brussels' convention, the conference doesn't really matter. it sends a terrible signal not only to our military personnel but to the world.
he has answered exhaustive questions about his record. he has the support of the president of the united states. i heard speeches from the other side saying a lot that the president should have the right to choose whoever he wants. he has the support of this body, majority vote in this body, in this democracy. we're a nation, mr. president, at war. we are, whether we like it or not, the world's i indispensable leader. we're it. for the sake of our national security, it's time to put aside this political theater, and that's what it is. people are worried about primary elections. we know how the tea party goes after elections when they aren't conservative enough. is that something they need to have on their resume? i filibustered one of the president's nominees.
is that what they want? the filibuster of senator hagel's confirmation is unprecedented. i repeat, not a single nominee for secretary of defense ever in the history of our country has been filibustered -- never, ever. and, as we all know, in it a matter of days -- in a matter of days across-the-board cuts are going to take place. it'll affect defense to the tune of $600 billion. wouldn't it be nice if we had a secretary of defense to kind of work things out? leon panetta, after more than 30 years of service in this country -- he has served in congress, been chairman of the budget committee, o.m.b., president's chief of staff, head of the c.i.a., secretary of defense -- he, after all these years, has gone home to his farm and his family in california. we do not have at 12:00 today a
secretary of defense. these across-the-board cuts are going to be very difficult. the pentagon needs a leader to oversee and manage historic cuts and ensure they're made in a responsible way. just a minute about senator hagel. he was an enlisted man in the vietnam war. he didn't have to go. he enlisted. the story of senator hagel is not a legend; it's true. he was an heroic warrior, an infantryman. he saved his brother' brother's. when he was a senator -- he saved his brother's life. when he was a senator here, the picture on his wall was of he and his brother in vietnam on a carrier.
he's proud of his service. he should be. wounded two times, an infantry squad leader, a man of integrity and dedication. he has a deep understanding of our national security establishment. gained not only from his military service but as a united states no member o senator, meme foreign intelligence committee. he's been a member of the president of the united states's foreign intelligence advise i have board. at a time when america faces so many threats, mr. president, i've outlined just a few of them -- all across the world. our nation needs a man with senator hagel's personal knowledge. we need a secretary of defense. it's tragic that they've decided to filibuster this qualified nominee. t is really unfortunate.
former nebraska senator chuck hagel nominated by the president, approved by the committee two days ago. his nomination on the floor of the senate following debate live coverage on c-span2. live this afternoon, booktv.org a live conversation with stephen hess who wrote, "whatever happened to the washington reporters: 1978-2012." he interviewed repoorlters in 1978 and in 2008 interviewed them again and revisited both the beats they covered and their views on journalism. that's live this evening at booktv.org at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> we think of it as this amazing feat that we accomplished this, that we ended segregation and we look back and
see how incredibly difficult it was, divisive in some ways but also that you have a very incremental progress after that that was very frustrating, i think, to people. so it's seen as a great victory but i think also it's important to be able to look back and see what we didn't accomplish yet. so regarding desegregation and how it was finally implemented 20 years later after brown was handed down, 20 years later, the way these program rrs set up, still maintains white privilege. >> sara garland talks about not the first but the only lawsuit brought by african-american parents about school segregation. that's on booktv on sunday on c-span2. >> charles kramer with a law
professor, he joined us on "washington journal" to talk about the national labor relations board to talk about the country's top enforcer of labor laws. continues. host: now we introduce you to george washington university law professor charles craver. he is joining us to help us better understand the national labor relations board and discuss some of the labor issues that the country currently faces
guest: the federal labor relations authority, federal workers are regulated by the flra, all private sector workers except railroad and airline people under the railway labor act are covered by the national relations act. host: even if you're not a member of the union, you're covered under the national labor relations board. guest: yes, and that comes up in a strange way, it protects your
right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid, and i was just discussing this in class this week a lot of employers say you can never discuss your salary that's private information. but the national labor relations board holds that i can ask you, if we're co-workers, i can ask what your raise was so i can see if i'm being treated fairly. host: what kind of authority does the national labor relations board have? guest: they have the authority to apply the national labor relations act. it's a simple statute. you have rights under section 7, the right to engage in concerted activity, the right to form a yupe, the right to oppose a union, the right to, if a majority elects a union, to have collective bargaining over the wages, hours and working
conditions. then there are unfair labor practices by employers, they can't coerce or restrain employees, have to bargain in good faith, can't discriminate because you are not a union member. labor organizations are forbidden to restrain employees, they have to bargain in good faith. they expect cause the employer to discriminate. what happens if someone alleges there's an unfair labor practice, there's a hearing before an administrative law judge who hears the facts and most of these cases are rather fact specific, what happened. they then determine it and you can appeal to the labor board, the labor board decides the matter and most parties actually comply even though they're not self-enforcing. if you don't like the board's decision, you can ignore it and the labor board has appeal for enforcement. but it isn't until a court of appeals finally upholds the labor board that you must
comply, otherwise you're in contempt and the court will sanction you for contempt, for not honoring the court's order. host: who make up the five that sit -- >> these are political appointments. one appointed every year system of vacancy every year. one is a chairman. off maximum of three republicans or a maximum of three democrats and whoever is in the white house. the president appoints them, they have to be confirmed by the senate. in the last four years, the senate has refused to confirm anybody a the president:ed by president obama so he's been make regular sesspoims which is where congress is in recess, the president has the power to make admfertive appointments without getting the consent of congress. host: who is the current chair of the national labor relations board? guest: mr. pierce. host: what's his background? guest: i do not know his personal background. i do not know the current board members personally. host: now, what are some of the decisions that the nlrb has made
recently that we might be familiar with? what kind of decisions have they made? guest: most people are not familiar with the national labor relations board which is sad, because employers are required to post notices about your civil rights rn the employee discrimination statute, the employer must post notices saying i cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, that sort of thing. the fair labor standards act also requires that it be posted the minimum wage is $7.50 an hour, most people are aware of the laws. if i ask the average person, including students that come to my class, what are your rights under the national labor act, they don't have a clue. most don't know what a union is. workers have no idea what their rights are. one of the most controversial
things the labor board has done finally they proposed a new rule that would require employers to post a notice, a large, one-page notice, that would define your basic rights thunder enational labor relations act just as we have for civil rights laws and the wage and hour laws. that's being challenge the one issue -- host: who is -- guest: employers are challenging that. the biggest publicity that's been generated didn't involve a board decision. they was boeing case, boeing decided to open a new manufacturing plant in south carolina. most of their work has historically been done in the seattle, washington, area and they've had a lot of work stoppages and gone back and forth and a charge was filed that boeing was coercing the employees, the union employees, and was opening the plant for discriminatory purposes. it got before the acting general council -- general counsel and all mr. solomon did was issue a complaint which allows the
matter to go before an administrative law judge. that's all that happens. a charge was filed he said let's issue a complaint so the administrative law judge and the labor board can hear it. part of the case was pretty clear. there were apparently statements made by boeing officials saying to the workers, one reason we're going to open the plant away from here, we want to punish you for your strike activity. that's an 8-a-1 violation. you're not allowed to threaten employees that way. that would be an easy unfair labor practice. the biggest issue was if they moved the plant to south carolina would that be illegal? if they laid off workers in seattle and moved the plant for anti-union purpose, this is a runaway shops, there have been a number of cases about this, they could order them to move back to seattle or hire the seattle workers in south carolina. >> they being the national labor relations board. guest: but apparently nobody was laid off. so there's a significant question whether there was any
runaway shop. and do they have the right to open a new factly in a right-to-work state hoping the union will be weak and the normal answer is yes, that is legal. host: how enforceable are the nlrb decisions? guest: the vast majority of times when the board issues a decision the employer complies. i represented management when i was in practice in san francisco before i went into teaching and we would tell the clipet, you know, the trial examiner, now the administrative law judge, found a viles. the labor board affirmed it. we think the chance of winning on appeal is very small. they would simply comply even though they could ignore it and the labor board would have to petition a court of appeals for enforcement. even where there are appeals, the vast majority of case the labor board is sustained. first of all, when a charge is filed, often the parties settle without getting a complaint issued by the labor board general counsel's office. after a formal complaint is issued, many cases are settled there because the board attorneys act as mediators even
though they're representing the charging party, technically. in most of these cases, they're not terribly controversy, they reach an agreement and settle. in cases that go to trial, i don't know the exact percentage, but most of the time when a complaint is shred the board wins. the nice thing about working for the labor boffered, you're almost always on the right side. the general counsel's office doesn't issue a complaint unless it's clear after navings a violation occurred. in 90% of the cases or more, when the charge is issued in the form of complaint, the labor board wins. in cases where it goes to a full hear, and there are law firms that love to litigate, they go to the court of appeals and the court of appeals enforces the labor board. most of the time it's sustained. host: was the lilly ledbetter case did it go through the national labor relations board? >> no -- guest: no that was a wage and hour case.
she said she got a lower wage because she was a woman. she didn't know about it, she heard rumors, when you finally decided to file a charge with the equal employment opportunity commission, more than 300 day the statutory limit, had gone by it went to the supreme court. the supreme court decided -- in a prior case, involving race discrimination in compensation, they had held that was a continuing violation because every time they get paid, you're under paying me because of my race or gender. in 1972, congress amended title 7 to make it clear that where you have a continuing violation involving compensation, back pay could not go back more than two years prior to the time you fileded the charge with the equal employment opportunity commission. but the supreme court all of a sudden the sided no, you had to challenge this when it first took place and what congress did was enacted the lilly ledbetter fair pay act and what that said
is every time you get paid if you're underpaid because of your race, your gender, religion, aim, or disability, off violation and you can file a charge at any time at that moment. host: even though this is an informational segment, very quickly as a former labor law lawyer and law proftsor who teaches labor law, is the nlrb effective? does it have effective powers? is it too politicized? what's your personal view? >> i would say it's -- guest: i would say it's very effective. yes it's political, as all administrative agencies are. a republican labor board tends to be more conservative a democratic board tends to be more liberal but the fact of the matter is i testified before the senate labor committee, you have a sense if you listen to the unions, they say the bush board was ex-dreamly pro employer, but the fact of the matter is ast
pend ewe lum inside a grandfather clock that moves back and forth but always stays within the box. why? because almost all the basic rules under the statute have been well defined by supreme court decisions and court of appeals decisions. the labor board doesn't have a lot of discretion. it's not as if they can amend a statute, if they did, a court of appeals would reverse them. there are cases, the republicans tend to vote for employers and there have been studies on this and the very close cases this democratic boards tepid to vote for the unions but most of these are fact-specific cases and they can't really change the law that much. every now and then they do. the bush board decided where there's been voluntary recognition, instead of having a election, the employer says, i will recognize you and bargain you which was done many year before the labor relations act and from 19 a 35 to 1947, it wasn't until the 1947 taft-hartley amendment the labor
board could only certify you through a secret ballot election they often certified on authorization cards. that would allow certification based on authorization cards with you say i want this union to be my bargaining agent. the reason the labor board doesn't have a lot of discretion a lot of people think the labor board has become less significant because when it was enacted union growth dramatically increased to the point where by 1955, almost 35% of private sector workers were in unions. you had the huge industrial unions, craft unions that had been unionized. what happened then is employers really started fighting. we had the taft-hartley act, a.f.l. had other unions to compete with them and employers started really pushing against unions.
and at the end of 2012, the private sector union membership fell to 6.6%. now that isn't so much because of the labor board, it's because of two things. the american labor movement is in the dark ages. they're still organizing 21st century workers as if they're factory workers, blue collar. fetch they work for wal-mart, they think they're white collar professionals even though they're at the bottom of the economic totem pole. what did the unions discover? if you want to organize school teachers, call them professionals. the federation of teachers. few you organize nurses, you have to have the nurses association. i have a union, the national bar association, they don't think of themselves -- the american bar association, they don't think of thems as a union. the american medical association does it for physicians. the only group in america today that doesn't have a united representation are workers.
and that's why professor stieglitz came out with his book in the middle class, we've seen a huge decline in the number of people in the middle class. the top 1% own about 1/3 of all the wealth in the country, the top 5% own about 65%. there's been a huge change. we had tremendous equality of wealth throughout the 1960's and 1970's. now we've become one of the most unequal countries in the world and it's frightening because it reminds me of france before the french revolution and russia before the russian revolution. i wonder how much longer workers in this country will bes do ill. i wrote a book years ago called "can unions survive," i said what will bring unions back, either they'll move into the 21st century and realize they have to be professional associations and not unions or workers will be so vehemently anti-union that workers will rebel and demand unions. host: you're watching an listening to professor charles
craver of george washington university, law professor there. we're talking about lay por issues and the national labor relations board. right wing tweets in to you, professor craver -- guest: all the board members now are recess appointments. when congress was not in session, the president appointed these people as normally the president's done in the past. the usual process is the president appoints people, they're sent before the senate, there are hearings, they vote for senate confirmation. but the republicans have been blocking all the obama appointments. what they need to do is president obama has to sit down with republican leadership in the senate and they have to put together a package, probably two democrats, two republicans,
republicans are going to lean toward management, the democrats will lean toward labor, and what they need to do is get those people confirmed. the labor board recently had a decision by the d.c. circuit court of appeals here in washington where they ruled this several appointments made by president obama were not during a technical resthofse senate. what the republicans were doing is when they went home, they would have brief sessions where no one was there, just so they could pretend they were still in session. the supreme court ruled a couple of years ago if you don't have at least three full board members, you don't have a quorum so at least three of the five have to be full board members, right now we only have one. i think chairman pierce is the only actual board member right now. so they can't issue any decisions according to d.c. circuit that are formal. the labor board right now is ignoring that decision and waiting to see what other courts will do pause the d.c. circuit issued a very narrow decision saying that the only time you can issue a recess appointment
is actually between sessions of congress when we have an election every two years whereas in the past, historically, when congress is in recess over the summer they take a one-week easter break, presidents did make poims and they were recess appointments and they were sustained. we'll have to wait and see what the ultimate decision is there. host: chris in rhode island, please go ahead with your question or comment for professor craver. caller: you're full of propaganda. in 2007 we have 146 million americans employed and today we only have 141 million americans employed. back in 2000 77 million citizens not in the labor force, today 89 million not in the labor force. unemployment statistics are completely prop began diesed, didn't want the american people to know the truth. the truth is that the labor unions were used to spread communism. i thought at -- as a lawyer
you're not going to present all the information that would make you lose your case. the truth is that through the frankfurt school in nazi, germany, they taught to redestroy religion, family -- host: a little off topic, do you want to address his points about -- guest: let me say something to chris. you don't know my background, i happen to be bulgarian. my mother grew up in bulgaria. left after having met an american and coming to this country before the communists took over, i absolutely an hor communism and one of the greatest days of my life was when the -- was when the wall came down. let me say something about organized labor. the vast majority of unions have never been communistic in this country. when i go around the world, they think we're extremely conservative, very capitalistic in terms of our union membership. and what's interesting is, i don't think unions are wonderful, i like checks and
balances. i love being an american and being in a culture where we have checks and balances. the president doesn't run the country, congress doesn't run the country, the supreme court doesn't run the country, they keep checks on each other. i don't think one side should have all the power. lord act i don't know said many decades ago, power tend to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. in the public sector unions have too much power, they've abused it and democrats have davidded by giving them unbelievably big retirement packages and health care. the solution isn't to eliminate the las as governor walker did in wisconsin. it's to go to the bargaining table. he went to the bargaining table and they gave him $100 million in reductions. what did the do with that? tax cuts for the wealthy. the unemployment has been largely created because of huge inequalities because of the
financial world. they cheated unbelievably in violation of the securities laws, they lied about the value of homes they lied about the income of people getting subprime mortgage they sold them as derivatives, clear violation of securities laws and of the electronic mail frud laws. why haven't any been indicted? because they paid huge contributions to democrat ic and republican parties to avoid being indicted. they should have been indicted. if workers are represented by unions, they have a voice against their employer. in this country if you're not in a union, in the private sector, you're an at-will employee, i can fire you at any time for good cause, bad cause or no cause. in the private sector, employers have all the power. if you look at compensation, in 1960, the top c.e.o.'s made 40 times what the average worker makes. now they make over 400 times what the average worker makes. why? because the work verse no bargaining power. host: jim buck tweets in to you
-- guest: they have a strange history because for years, they were unionized. even before the railway labor act. many of the railroad people, you had, threrp all brotherhoods, they were all totally sex itself, and i will say racist, most of them were exclusively for white men. you had engineers, yard men, train crews, they were unionized and they had the transportation act of 1920 and codified this, it was jointly negotiated between the unions and the railroad carriers, the railway labor act of 1926. a number of years later, the congress thought, the airlines look a lot like the railroads, we'll put them under that act, it's like the national labor relations act, but they have to go through very, very formal procedures before they have a